Women and the News

I agree with Atrios that Linda Hirschman seemed unduly dependent on anecdotal evidence. That said, there's plenty of information in the Pew Center's survey of media consumption habits to support what she's saying. Download the detailed demographic tables and see for yourself. 44 percent of men, but only 38 percent of women, say they read a newspaper yesterday. Young men, middle aged men, and old men were all more likely to read a newspaper than were women of the same cohort. Men were also more likely, across age group, to have read about the news online.

Just 32 percent of working mothers and just 33 percent of single parents (a group overwhelmingly composed of women) say they read a newspaper yesterday. Women also listen to less radio news than men (31 percent as opposed to 42 percent say they listened yesterday) and watch TV news in about equal numbers (57 percent to 58 percent). Women were more likely to watch the nightly network news, but less likely to watch cable news channels, and way more likely to watch morning shows. Fewer women (3 percent against 6 percent) said they regularly watch C-SPAN, slightly fewer women (16 percent to 18 percent) say they regularly listen to NPR, fewer women (16 percent to 13 percent) say they regularly read newsmagazines, fewer women (7 percent to 3 percent) say they regularly read business magazines, and fewer women say they watch The Daily Show.

I don't think these facts should be read in a disparaging way (i.e., "women are dumb") since there are lots of obvious explanations for them -- women have less free time in general thanks to the "second shift," news content is overwhelming generated by men, there's a lock-in factor where people who expect their audience to be male don't try to appeal to women, the construction of what is and isn't "political" embeds certain male assumptions, women are poorer on average, etc. -- but they are the facts. Women consume less news than men, and the news they do consume draws disproportionately from network television broadcasts that, as you can rapidly confirm by watching, are truly dismal in terms of information content.

UPDATE: It should be said that every survey I've ever seen shows that the overwhelmingly majority of men are almost completely ignorant about the issues facing the country so it's not clear to me that there's any crucial significance to the gender gap. It's a simple fact of life that the voting is done by a population of people -- male, female, and otherwise -- who have very little relevant information at their disposal. Outside a narrow circle of political junkies, average people just aren't interested in politics.

Comments

Because Gawd knows that if women don't turn to the sports page to find out the latest Arenas anecdote, the country will fall. The survey to which you've linked looks pointless, at least through the early pages.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 12:25 PM

I didn't say the country would fall. And, seriously, don't read the survey if you don't want to read the survey, but you can't not read the survey and then complain that people are relying on anecdotal evidence.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 29, 2007 12:31 PM

Men over-estimate how much "news" is good and necessary. Do things change so much hour-to-hour, day-to-day? No.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 29, 2007 12:32 PM

Er, in almost all the stats you cited, the differences is slight. 16 or 18, 38 or 44; same difference.

Posted by David Weman | January 29, 2007 12:34 PM

but you can't not read the survey and then complain that people are relying on anecdotal evidence.

No, but I can complain that they're relying on survey evidence that doesn't necessarily show what they think it shows. Under the survey, I really do believe that men who read the sports pages only would be counted as having consumed more news. I don't think would support any thesis that Hirshman might want to lay out as regards informed political decisions.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 12:38 PM

Tags! Close the tags!

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 29, 2007 12:49 PM

Jeffrey Davis makes a good point. I recall a study of investment behavior a few years ago -- men followed the performace of their investments much more closely, and traded more often -- with the natural result that they saw lower returns.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 29, 2007 12:51 PM

I remember after 9/11- some network broadcast a show highlighting the perspective of bin Laden's ex-sister-in-law or some such person on the al-Queda leadership and the show garnered big ratings because a lot of women tuned in. Many women feel the "human" element is missing from print or cable news or talk radio- that it's just one big dry heave divorced from the feelings the issues of the day rouse. O they see the news as a harsh tableaux of blood and guts devoid of context or again- "the human element"- they're turned off because they feel the emotional/psychological component of the story is missing. At CBS Katie Couric wanted this "softer" approach to the news and I have no idea whether a lot more women are tuning in, but you get my point.

Posted by Trevor | January 29, 2007 1:17 PM

And women can't possibly keep up with the news by using the web.

Posted by peaceweaver | January 29, 2007 1:21 PM

"It should be said that every survey I've ever seen shows that the overwhelmingly majority of men are almost completely ignorant about the issues facing the country so it's not clear to me that there's any crucial significance to the gender gap."

It would seem that consumption of mass-media news product and knowledge of issues do not corelate. I am not surprised. On the rare occasion that something of substance is covered in a serious way, it is as likely as not that the goal of the news item is to make the consumer know something that is not true.

I used to watch the evening news every night, and read the front, national and international sections of the Washington Post, and sometimes the NY Times and Wall St. Journal. Too often, I would come away realizing that there was no real information in anything I read. You can't just eliminate the trash. You have to read the limp equivocations and biased pieces and the space filler to have a hope of seeing something meaningful. I gave it all up.

I know there are exceptions. Some reporters still do their job well on a regular basis. John Burns comes to mind. But there is just so much crap out there that it works like chaff to counter radar. If I don't have reason to expect that a news item is worthwhile before I invest any time I'm not biting. That's why I like blogs. A few bloggers I read sift through the crap, and a good, solid 10% of the time, their recommended reading is worthwhile.

Posted by Njorl | January 29, 2007 1:33 PM

It's little disappointing that the acknowledgment that there isn't a crucial significance to the gender gap had to wait for an update.

Posted by cg | January 29, 2007 1:40 PM

"44 percent of men, but only 38 percent of women, say they read a newspaper yesterday"

The number for men is probably much higher on Monday mornings during football season.

I would be very hesitant to draw any meaningful conclusions from such a relatively small margin in such a vague statistic.

Posted by RickD | January 29, 2007 2:16 PM

I would avoid the use of "average people", and instead use "regular people", or, more congenially, "regular folks". What's that old tune..."I am everyday people"...sort of points at it but in a different way and I wouldn't use that terminology.

"Average" betrays a little too much of the mindset of the numbers-oriented technocrat.

Posted by Jimm | January 29, 2007 2:29 PM

Also when they do try to appeal to women their idea of "appeal to women" is light everything softly, chat it up Oprah style and throw in someone like Couric instead of changing the focus of stories themselves to deal with the impact of policy decisions on people's lives.

All of the smug inside baseball talk on cable shows and the seeming disconnect from anything resembling an important issue is a huge turn off even for someone who cares about politics and is in the CSPAN watching 3 percent of females.

Posted by ellenbrenna | January 29, 2007 2:38 PM

A small experiment:
Open google news, and give in the name of any fairly big city.
If this city is not the capital of the nation, and has one (or more) team in a major league of any sport, chances are good the first ten founds will be sport related.
If it is DC, about 5 in ten.

Still more amazing: the test works for the Us and any reasonably sized european country. You just have ten Soccer articles there.

So, do you think the ten percent difference in Newspaper reading play a role in the election? Is it not that the missing 10% of women are just corresponding to men reading only the sport part?

Posted by ifo nuts | January 29, 2007 2:47 PM

As the Grateful Dead used to sing it, "the women are smarter".

Posted by Jimm | January 29, 2007 2:48 PM

And this is important...why?

Posted by Mr. Noah | January 29, 2007 3:00 PM

Newspapers must be getting desperate about declining circulation if they start publishing stories like Ms. Hirshman's that are fun to read because they are so obviously true.

Having spent too much of my life at magazine racks reading for free what I should have paid for, I can assure you that attractive single women read fashion, makeup, and fitness magazines. And not much else. Attractive married women read home decorating magazines. I imagine it's different in Washington DC, but that's the way it is in Chicago and LA.

Opinion journalism is overwhelmingly created and consumed by men. Women like things that are practical, and having an informed opinion on the trouble in the Horn of Africa is of no possible use to them or their loved ones. So, they don't bother.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 29, 2007 3:04 PM

Steve Sailer sure is predictable...

Posted by Petey | January 29, 2007 3:05 PM

Petey, I'm with you for once. I'll take your DLC centrism over Sailer's creepy social Darwinism any day of the week.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 29, 2007 3:13 PM

"Petey, I'm with you for once. I'll take your DLC centrism over..."

If I were a DLC centrist, I'd be on the HRC bandwagon instead of the Edwards bandwagon...

Posted by Petey | January 29, 2007 3:18 PM

Aw, HRC's not so bad...

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 29, 2007 3:23 PM

My wife thinks its really cute to read young men denouncing anyone who points out that, on average, young women really aren't as interested in politics, or guitar rock, or Star Wars, or Tarantino movies or whatever young men are obsessed with. The guys try to make it sound like they are doing it to be all liberal and politically correct, but they are really giving off heavy desperation vibes saying, "Please, don't ruin my fantasy of someday finding a girl who cares as much as I do about by obsession."

Sorry, but the odds are you won't. You might think you have, but she's probably just pretending to be fascinated because she thinks you're cute. Heck, my wife acted interested in _golf_ ... until we got married.

But, guys, guess what? Women turn out to have really interesting things to say when we finally stop yapping at them about our fixations and start talking with them about what they want to talk about. And you know what one of the things they really like to talk about turns out to be? The endless differences between men and women.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 29, 2007 3:36 PM

I'm sure there are thing I'm less interested in than advice from Steve Sailer on my love lie, but offhand I can't think of any.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 29, 2007 3:41 PM

Otherwise!

Posted by otto | January 29, 2007 3:46 PM

Removing the sports section, one would wonder if more men really do read the news than women.

Posted by Jimm | January 29, 2007 4:00 PM

I agree with Sailer up to a point. Of course women tend to read and prefer "fashion, makeup and fitness" magazines. But they don't do so in order to compile information--fashion, makeup and fitness tips. Women read People and Cosmo in order to indulge themselves, to let their minds wander for a moment in an idealized and attractive unreality.

Similarly, men tend to read to read and prefer news and opinion journalism. But, again, not for reasons practical and hard-headed. (After all, if it's intellectual nutrition they're after, surely they'd do well to avoid the often fact-free, tendentious and plainly stupid opinionating found in the typical popular opinion rag). They too wish to indulge themselves, to traffic a little bit in the rarified and seductive world of power and respectability. And so, predictably, the totally pointless Obama/Harvard Law article shoots to the top of the NYTimes most emailed and content-free and gossipy political profiles (of Sam Brownback or Mitt Romney) grace the covers of TNR and National Review (that is, when TNR isn't running a Crowley piece on which powerful Republicans live where).

It's true that men prefer politics to fashion, but that says NOTHING about their intellectual seriousness (nothing good, at least).

Posted by Mark | January 29, 2007 4:43 PM

Of course Steve Sailer is provably correct in what he says here, but what kind of excuse is that?

It is not just that women are moderately less likely to read the paper: they're far less likely to read the _news_.
The information difference is big.

From the Pew Research Center:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=134

" For example, an August 1995 survey about Congressional issues found that among the public at large, 21% knew at least three out of four well-reported facts: 1) that the House had passed more legislation than the Senate, 2) that the telecommunications bill would deregulate the telephone industry, 3) that Medicare's long term solvency was in question, and 4) that Clinton opposed GOP proposals to lift the Bosnian arms embargo. Only 8% of respondents under 30 years of age knew these facts, compared to 23% among 30-49 year olds, 24% among 50-64 year olds, and 30% among those 65 years and older.

The same survey also uncovered a huge gender gap: 30% of men were knowledgeable about those Congressional items, compared to only 12% of women. "

"After analyzing a total of 159 information questions asked by the Center from 1989 to 1993, Georgetown University political scientist Diana Owen made the following observations:

Men answered more questions correctly than women on a wide range of news issues. This is the case for domestic policy questions and questions about people in the news, but the gender gap is even wider for international news. Only on the subject of entertainment is there no information gap between men and women.

Education does little to mitigate the differences in levels of knowledge between women and men. College-educated men are significantly more knowledgeable than any other group. College-educated women are only slightly more informed than men without college degrees. Women without a college degree are the least knowledgeable, except for entertainment news; in this case, non-college educated women are more knowledgeable than women with degrees. "

It's true, of course, that political knowledge is amazingly low in every group. Including pundits, I might add.

Posted by gcochran | January 29, 2007 5:13 PM

1) that the House had passed more legislation than the Senate, 2) that the telecommunications bill would deregulate the telephone industry, 3) that Medicare's long term solvency was in question, and 4) that Clinton opposed GOP proposals to lift the Bosnian arms embargo.

One is a meaningless factoid with no bearing on actual knowledge. Three is false -- it's contribution to knowledge is negative. Four is a tiny, arbitrary piece of a very complicated issue. So of the four "well-reported facts", only one represents meaningful knwoledge about politics.

Which is typical of how unilluminating this whole discussion is.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 29, 2007 5:21 PM

Yea, I'm not sure how reading the newspaper would inform you that the House passed more legislation than the Senate. I read not only several newspapers everyday (sports and front news sections), but also cruise for news on the blogospheres, and the only reason I'd answer this question correctly is that I'd guess that the House always passes more stuff than the Senate, not because I had a running tally for the year from reading the news. That just seems silly to me and a stupid question.

As for the telecommunications bill, that is more relevant, as is the Medicare solvency "question" (whether you believe it to be a question or not you should be aware some do). Clinton opposing GOP proposals to lift the Bosnian arms embargo is asking a lot for an everyday citizen to be ruminating on, so that's less about reading the news than whether you're interested in the news and focus on that particular piece of the news (since most people don't read all the news either, just skim through and pick a few articles).

There clearly would be a better way (i.e. questions) to determine in a study who is reading the news and who is not, as opposed to who is interested in domestic and world political affairs. One could read the news and focus mostly on local news, weather, entertainment, and crime while completely ignoring a lot of the political content. It's just a function of personal interest, and a good study would be able to separate the two.

That said, there's little doubt that women are generally more interested than men in fashion, home and entertainment, while men are generally more interested than women in sports and business. That leaves the main news sections which carry a combination of crime, culture, and political reporting, which any particular reader with limited time may give different priority and attention.

Posted by Jimm | January 29, 2007 6:30 PM

I think you have to acknowledge an even deeper problem. Among those people who obsessively follow the news and politics, many appear completely incapable of critically thinking about it or understanding it. Being well educated and interested did not get people to think about Iraq critically. Nor is Iraq the exception.

Posted by MDtoMN | January 29, 2007 10:32 PM

It's been shown that women _do_ know more than men about one venue of politics -- school board elections.

Even from here, I can see the eyes glazing over on the 90+% male readership of MatthewYglesias.com. School boards? Borrrring! C'mon, lets get back to discussing the _important_ news, like the shifting balance of power in the Horn of Africa. I mean, I've got a kid in public school, but still, there are limits to what my male dignity can put up with, and thinking about school board elections is way, way past that limit.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 29, 2007 11:06 PM

I'm with Sailer on this one. I don't see how anyone who's ever been subjected to the pompous lecturing of an opinionated middle-aged male newspaper reader could miss his point. Mark at 4:43 summed it up best though -- both men and women tend to indulge their fantasy lives by reading the paper, but for men it's fantasies of world-historical influence, and for women it's fantasies of beauty and escapism.

Speaking of male fantasy lives, look at all the pathetic military history dweebs among the warbloggers. Usually their opinion on Iraq, the war on terror, etc. are barely concealed masturbatory fantasies about what *they would do* if they were a powerful dictator, invaded enemy nations, made warlike speeches, had the power of life and death over liberal traitors, etc. They're all compulsive newspaper readers too, combing through the back pages for evidence of Iranian perfidy, secret strategic developments that only they understand, etc.

Posted by MQ | January 29, 2007 11:30 PM

I am a woman, a journalism major, and a political junkie and online newspaper reader. But among the women I know from a few social/econ. classes? Friends, sisters, co-worker women etc. ... they are uninformed, or choose to be informed through their intimate contacts -- usually husbands and friends: who are not informed and don't read the news.

Hirshman's evidence can be criticized as presented, but if women want to win, they should listen to what she is saying because I would bet cash she is quite right. You hate to think that you have to reach out to women like that on things other than issues, but if you want to win, you do. Some of us don't want to or have to win like that, so we are just who we are. But women like me are in the minority, and not too valued these days on merit. The wives and mothers benefit from their roles by proxy.

Posted by anonymous | January 30, 2007 7:02 PM

Women's magazine's that you may not bother to read because they are largely concerned with fitness, fasshion and beauty also frequently feature articles about international and national women's issues that have political implications.

Again if someone talks about why international and national issues are important to women's lives they pay attention but when politics is treated like a sport they just tune it out.

Posted by ellenbrenna | January 31, 2007 1:27 AM